http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PD ... N=58749775

previous report

http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastri ... t_2012.pdf

UH and TTU are not included any longer because they have already qualified

while TxState currently meets none of the metrics it should be noted that at this time last year UTSA met none of the metrics and weeks after the report they were listed on the Phi Kappa Phi website as members and meet that qualification now

judging from the lost of chapters in Texas I see no reason that TxState could not immediately become a member

https://members.phikappaphi.org/publicv ... ctory.aspx

also the #1 requirement that must be met before all others is the 45 million in restricted research....TxState has made large strides in that area recently especially considering the lack of PhD programs, the engineering programs are just getting really going and the smaller graduate enrollment

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

above are the restricted research numbers for the last few years so you can see that TxState has been moving up faster than a few in terms of % increase

as far as the 4 of 6 other criteria that TxState could also meet

it looks as though endowment and # of PhDs graduated is a ways down the road (and it is PhDs so EdDs and the like do not count)

so that is 2 of 6 already looking difficult to meet

TxState actually had two years in a row where their freshman class was over 50% from the top 25% and they are close now and if needed I am sure that metric could be met

I think PKP will happen soon enough to that is 2 of 4 that will be hard to meet for a while and 2 of 4 that could be meet much sooner

high quality faculty.....pretty hard to meet that is a lot of National Academy Members or the like....BUT I think that TxState could meet the review of 5 PhD programs in part C of that with Geography, Aquatics, the New Materials PhD. (if set up and funded right) and then two more would be needed.....could take some external fundraising, but not impossible IMO

that leaves graduate quality.....with a smaller # of students TxState could meet sooner than later if they are selective in growing those programs and kept the graduation rates up as they grew those programs

so that means PKP, Freshman class could be met sooner rather than later and then % graduate students (graduate quality) and the part III of faculty quality where 5 graduate programs are reviewed IMO are the best options to try and achieve since 298 million is a lot of cash to raise straight into the endowment and 200 is a lot of PhDs to produce from 34 especially if trying to keep graduation rates up and only offering 10 PhD programs overall

I say 8 years is a good goal 6 if there is a massive external fundraising campaign

looking at who else back in 2008 was at about 22 million in restricted research and where they are today I think 8 years might get some of them to 45 million and the only reason that will be harder for TxState is because of the lack of PhD offerings and graduate enrollment, but at the same time with engineering programs just starting that means productive research faculty can be hired VS coddling and keeping around faculty in dated and non-research areas.....or worse yet having to realign those positions into research focused areas as one school on that list that will remain nameless (but that is EASY to identify) is having to do and struggling with it greatly at the same time

so TxStaters need to get out the check books haha and lobby for more engineering offerings, be ready for admissions increases in the future and lobby for more PhD programs as well

well the 2014 report is out

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/Do ... format=pdf

pretty much the same as last year with a few exceptions of note

1. Texas State did in fact become a member of PKP as expected and thus joined the ranks of the others that have met one of the four criteria out of six that need to be met after meeting 45 million in restricted research

2. Texas State was also just at the 50% mark in 2013 for % of freshman class that is in the top top 25% of their HS class......Texas State had been above that in the past before they were an emerging research university for a couple of years, but had dropped down slightly recently

if Texas State meets that in 2014 then that would be a second metric of four needed out of six after a university meets the 45 million in restricted research

3. Texas State had a slight slip in restricted research from 22 million to 21 million......this can happen from time to time and as the link shows Texas State was not alone UTD and UTSA had drops

Texas Tech was not listed because they have already qualified for NRUF funding, but they had a dip in restricted research expenditures as well and UTA had about a 200K drop, but that is not reflected since the report deals in whole millions and UTA was still in the 32 million dollar range

it was actually about an 800K drop for Texas State......Texas State really needs that new engineering building

other things of interest

4. UTD dropped down below the 45 million in restricted research threshold which is not of major significance it appears since they are still short on either PhDs awarded or endowment to meet four of the six criteria.......UTD will surely be the next to qualify for NRUF funding it is just a matter of how soon.....they are a sure lock on freshman class, faculty quality (strengthened considerably there year over year) and PKP membership

they are raising a ton of money recently and more importantly getting it into their endowment VS spending it or collecting "life trust" for the future that will not reflect in the current endowment and they will probably meet the PhDs awarded as well in the next year or so

so UTD could qualify as soon as 2016 if they meet either endowment or PhDs awarded this year and next and they get their restricted research above 45 million this year and next

5. UTA is looking more and more like they will be the 4th to qualify, but it could be some years down the road......they are very strong on freshman class, they have PKP membership and their PhDs awarded are pretty high

the problem for them is the are light years away on endowment or faculty quality......they did well in "faculty awards", but those are very hard to maintain year in and year out it is much easier to meet the other portion of that category by hiring faculty members that are national academy members or even Nobel prize winners because that recognition stays with them.....the faculty awards are a year to year measure and thus you need more/different faculty to step each year

I suppose there is a chance they could try and have a five program review of faculty to meet that criteria as the guidelines allow and then also try and meet "graduate program quality" the same way with those same five PhD programs reviewed against AAU like metrics and then UTA bumps up their masters and PhD graduation rates and that would get them to four out of six criteria.........I think what will mostly likely happen is once UTD ends their fundraiser campaign UTA will start theirs (so there are not two UT System components running campaigns concurrently in the same metro area) and now that UTD has seven faculty members with major recognition UTA will start recruiting their own which is hard to do, but not impossible......Texas Tech recruited three national academy members last year alone to bump from one to four so with UT System help UTA could get five members on faculty over two to three years right about the time they meet the 45 million in restricted research possibly

I think they can probably get their PhDs awarded up by then as well and they will have met the four criteria out of six

6. UTEP does really well on research, but they are light years away on everything else and their idiot president has pretty much tossed in the towel with the loser attitude of "we have a different mission"

7. UTSA has a long way to go on many fronts as well

8. poor north Texas state was the only university to actually DROP in one of the six criteria.....they had qualified with freshman class in the past, but failure to meet "closing the gaps" goals has cost them that qualifying metric

north Texas state has a crisis of leadership going on right now and a complete lack of focus or ability to shift their university and that is now coupled with a pretty significant financial issue that will cost them now and into the future......it will most likely delay the construction of a STEM focused building and it is going to take away a large amount of available resources now and probably for a number of years and it will delay construction on campus overall and it is taking away the focus of leadership from any "tier 1" or NRUF qualification goals

their "goal" if you can call it that is to meet 45 million in restricted research by 2020 and that would qualify them for NRUF funding in 2022.......but of course north Texas state has struggled to meet any past goals for restricted research (though the were extremely unrealistic) and so there is no reason to think they will meet that goal especially with what is going on there now

also while they have freshman class I think there is a chance that could fade over time as UTA, UTD, UTSA and Texas State all step up and as UH and Texas Tech gain in reputation from the addition of NRUF funding

they have already struggled meeting enrollment goals and that has hurt them financially even before the "irregularities" were discovered and the publication of those irregularities will not help recruitment of the top students especially as others keep chugging along and if they struggle to gain enrollment numbers in general that hurts them even more so as they have been aggressively forecasting enrollment already and missing those goals repeatedly

also while they have 4 faculty members with academy membership it is actually only three individuals as one of them has both engineering and arts and sciences membership and he is already retired and he has spent the last year at Texas A&M and not teaching at north Texas state and thus should have probably not even have been counted in this latest report and he is also only a part time teaching appointment not a full time appointment and more than likely he will be long gone from north Texas state by 2020 anyway so they will need to replace those two criteria with probably two other individuals

they will probably meet PhDs awarded and keep PKP membership of course, but after that they stall out......they have just in the final year of a pretty lackluster capital campaign that was really not even much of a campaign it was more of a "lets aggregate some past years donations and call that a silent phase, set a low final goal for two more years and say we had a campaign"......and it is rare to start one right after another and it did very little for their endowment overall anyway

9. it will really be between UTSA, Texas State and north Texas state as to who qualifies 5th and north Texas state had "thrown down the gauntlet of 2022" so there is something for Texas state to look at and I think that UTSA is probably back from that

UTSA has done well with increased freshman entrance metrics, they are of course PKP members, but they are way behind on endowment and PhDs awarded.....they have done very well fundraising though and they do have one national academy member and again it is possible to recruit several in a year and they did meet the masters and PhD graduation rates, but I don't think they have five programs at AAU like metrics to complete that category

they are up there in restricted research as well

10. for Texas State

need to add PhD programs.....probably physics, math, computer science, another in engineering and add two more engineering undergrad programs and get the building built

need to start hiring members of the national academies.....probably need to concentrate them in specific disciplines....three in engineering programs, one in aquatics, one in geography and one in either CS, Math or Physics

need to make sure that the Geography graduate programs are at AAU like metrics and same with Aquatics.......need to hold firm on the materials science graduate program to make sure it meets AAU like metrics even if that holds back growth......then select two more programs to make it five that have AAU like graduate program metrics to qualify for that criteria in the NRUF criteria

make sure the national academy member hires match up to those 5 selected programs unless another candidate in another area is really too hard to pass up

raise admissions criteria to raise prestige it is working for UH and it is going to work it appears for UTSA and it is time for Texas State to do the same.....fall 2013 enrollment was a record 35,568 and the Texas forecast for Texas State enrollment for 2015 is 35,877 and for 2020 is 37.792

the "closing the gaps" target is 36,00 by 2015 so Texas State is basically there...the 2013 forecast goal was 34,767

endowment will be tough to accomplish as will number of PhDs graduated

that leaves freshman class that Texas State is very close on, PKP membership that is done and faculty quality and graduate program quality

5 national academy members gets the faculty quality done and then graduate program quality counts on graduation rates for masters and PhDs......Texas State has a slight advantage here with smaller numbers if they are highly selective in who they admit and they manage them closely.....then of course you have to have the five programs with AAU like metrics.....again I think Geography, Aquatics, Materials Science and a choice of another engineering program, CS, Physics or Math are the choices and national academy member hires would play a factor in that

I think the five+ national academy hires would be difficult in a way, but more difficult will be the five programs with AAU like metrics

Texas State will probably in two to three years when restricted research reaches 30-35 million need to have a "NRUF qualifying" Capital Campaign similar to "The Drive" where they basically spell out what it will take for Texas State to get five + national academy members on campus and get five graduate programs to AAU like metrics and spell out why those particular five programs are being targeted over others and the cost of doing it and make the final push.....in three years that would be 2017 and then qualify in 2019 for restricted research dollars and have the other 4 metrics in line as well and get the NRUF funding

adding two more engineering programs, more PhD programs, getting the engineering building built will help a lot of things, but private dollars matched with TRIP matching funds will get it done the best when it comes to adding national academy members and elevating five programs to AAU like metrics

Texas State has a plan

https://star.txstate.edu/node/1650

and here is the detailed plan submitted April of 2014 to the THECB

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm? ... E27D23A0F8

from there it appears that Texas State is looking at an 8-11 year window.....I think that is too long, but who knows it is better to have conservative goals and meet them early VS having stupid goals and wiffing on them completely.....like another university that is poorly managed that had a strategic research report due April of 2014 and has missed that deadline....along with a bunch of others

it appears that Civil and Mechanical Engineering are being looked along with Civil Engineering Technology.....smart move there

also Texas State should move past DRU to RU/H in the 2015 Carnegie Classification and that will mean that Texas State will then be in the national university category of the US Snooze and world Reports university rankings instead of in the regional.......being DRU will be enough already, but RU/H is even better

Awesome post. Really like reading information like this. I need to start donating on the academic front like I do on the athletic, though I'm a small fish.

Glad to see students in the to 25% going up. I was in that group and it makes a big difference in the quality of students graduating from the school. I hope they cap number of students sooner or later and start ramping up standards. But with the push to give access to college to more and more students, thats easier said then done.

Really good info--appreciate it!

And I fully-agree with you on the need to target national academy members in the hiring process. But I have one caveat... Texas State cannot lose sight of teaching ability in their hiring process.

We need that engineering building yesterday. And I'm especially glad they are targeting civil & mechanical engineering--this state (& honestly, this country) does not have the capacity to produce enough applied engineers to have any hope of achieving economic development and R&D goals.

There needs to be some serious changes to FAB if we want to get an Academy member in the Aquatics faculty. Freeman is a shit hole and they are not funded terribly well. In 2013 the de-ionized water line broke and the university didn't allocate funds to fix it. We had to regularly go all the way to chem to get 5 gallon containers of de-ionized water for the lab.

In addition most major equipment is housed in the nicer and newer Supple Science building and its a huge pain to go from FAB to supple.

My uneducated guess is though that most of the Aquatics funding is going towards the Meadows Center and when I was there getting the springs restored and up to snuff was a major priority. That doesn't make freeman not a shithole though.

My 2 cents.

Gotta love passion. Good post.

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/pd ... N=16701399

well it is that time of year again (and finally a post to knock down the spam for shit quality fake Euro furniture)

I will try and keep this brief there is not a ton that was unexpected

lets of course start with Texas State

we will start with the "bad news" first and get that out of the way

1. well Texas State is still meeting only 1 of the 6 metrics that would be needed AFTER the mandatory first metric of $45 million in restricted research, but in reality that is not unexpected

2. the actual "bad news" is that Texas State moved down in the % of students from the top 25% of the HS class

in 2014 Texas State was right at 50% now they have moved down 2 years in a row

lets me clear this is not a huge deal right now because it really does not matter until Texas State gets closer to the needed $45 million in research

also truth be told the VAST VAST majority of HS seniors are not looking at these NRUF reports and thinking "my God Texas State is enrolling a smaller % of top 25% students do I want to go there"

BUT it is my opinion that Texas State does at least want to manage this to a degree because in my opinion i continued decline in that metric will reflect that Texas State is somehow failing to connect and attract those students and over time students could notice that their "smart friends" are looking elsewhere and if Texas State needed to move that metric it could be harder to move it up than expected

the reality is a couple of years ago Texas State was closer to meeting that metric than UTSA was and now UTSA meets it

UTSA made a concerted effort to raise their admissions standards and it cost them greatly in enrollment, but it has moved their student profile

lets also be clear Texas State still has very good graduation rates and so they seem to be letting in quality students and getting them out, but Texas State also has a very high student to faculty ratio right now and IMO that needs to be improved and enrollment is VERY high right now and I see little need to grow it much larger until the student to faculty ratio is addressed and I think that an increase in admission standards properly done and advertised right could be a benefit overall and could actually help enrollment

also if there is a need I think Texas State would probably be able to deny admission to some "individual review" students and move that ratio.....I have no clue how many they are letting in now or if it is a meaningful number, but of course the fewer students you let in that are below the top 25% the higher the % of those that are in the top 25% becomes for your freshman class.....so if Texas State is letting a decent amount in for enrollment purposes well they can stop that if needed

but again there is not a need now or anytime soon, but it needs to be managed and IMO it needs to be kept closer to the 48% or so range into the future

3. endowment.....this is not exactly "bad news" nor is it a surprise, but the REALITY here is with the movement Texas State has made in restricted research they do need to consider what 4 of 6 criteria they are looking to meet

in the strategic plan they have already admitted that "PhDs graduated" seems to not be reachable in any reasonable period of time and I agree

I also feel that "graduate review of 5 programs to have AAU like metrics" seems like a stretch

so that leaves Freshman Class, University Recognition, Faculty Quality and ENDOWMENT

the NACUBO has Texas State at $167 million in endowment, but I have said before I believe the McCoy College Money is in a non-university endowment and thus it is not counted for NRUF purposes which is why the $137 million is here

$263 million is a chunk of change when you are talking about dollars actually ending up in the endowment Vs something like a "life trust" that you count now, but gets paid over years or years later when someone dies

Texas State can probably only count in the invested portion growing to $150 or $160 million over the next few years simply on investment return because of course they are spending 4.5% to 5% annually

even with $30 million in REAL CASH MONEY donations over the next EIGHT years that only barely gets you to the $400 million and then you have 2 years from there to meet all the needed metrics for both years to collect NRUF money

the "Pride in Action" was "silent" from 2006 to 2011 (a LONG TIME for "silent") and then public for 2011 to 2014 and it raised $151 million, but of course some of that is life trust, life insurance, "in kind services" ect that does not end up in an endowment for a while if ever

generally 3 years is about the shortest before you start another campaign, but Texas State better already be planning one

the LAST thing you want to do is actually meet the restricted research metric and not be prepared to meet the other 4 of 6 needed metrics at that same time because with the up and down nature of restricted research you never know you could end up missing out for a time with failing to match metrics when the time was right

and example would be Texas Tech they were $50 million one year, $46 the next and then $40, but they had already qualified with the two prior years, but if they had not had it all lined up it could have cost them two years of funding at least

4. the last bit of "bad news" really goes with the above and private dollars/endowment

again I think that Texas State will ABSOLUTELY need "faculty quality" and that will mean national academy members since the "faculty awards" one seems almost impossible to meet especially 2 years in a row

Texas State of course right now as the report shows is at 0 for this.....as one can also see UTA moved from 0 to 3 in a single year

Texas Tech also recently managed to hire 3 similar faculty members in a single year as well, but that came with endowed faculty positions of about $2.5 million each....I am not sure what UTA had to offer as far as endowment dollars for a specifically faculty position went or if they had anything

so again Texas State CAN get these types of faculty, but it takes private endowment/faculty chairs to get them generally

In my opinion Texas State probably should have hired at least one already simply because of the new engineering programs that was the perfect time to bring on one as a major professor to get things going or even as a department chair to get things going....the GOOD news is once the Engineering building gets built that will be attractive and also once it is built Texas State has plans for a civil and environmental engineering department so there is again "opportunity" as well


that is pretty much the sum total of the "bad news" which is really not all that bad other than Texas State needs to get rolling and the main reason is because of "good news #1"

1. the restricted research number went from $21 million to $27 million in a single year that is a HUGE jump especially for a younger research university like Texas State (IE just starting PhD programs)

lets be clear here it will be highly probable that number might go down the next report (this time next year) because that is the nature of getting grants especially bigger ones, but the overall pattern for Texas State is a very rapid move up

also from what I am seeing with the other emerging research universities the $30 to $35 million range seems to be difficult to get past

both UTSA and UTA have been up to $32 or so for a couple of years and dropped back down to $30 to $28 million and struggled to get back up past the $30 range again

this could have to do with the idiots stimulus package and research funding being spiked and then dropping back to normal levels and both UTA and UTSA would have been in position to get some of those dollars as larger urban research universities

the good news for Texas State is a new engineering building is on the way, new engineering degree programs are on the way and there is still room for growth in the current engineering programs both in masters and PhD students and faculty while the other emerging research universities have much more mature engineering programs

2. the next bit of good news is that in the very REALISTIC strategic plan that Texas State did last year they specifically discuss the restricted growth and how that works with NRUF qualification and also what of the 4 of 6 criteria they feel are reasonable to meet....but I do not think that $27 million in restricted research was expected so soon

3. other good news is that the Ingram Donation qualifies for TRIP matching funds and Abbott is trying to clear the backlog of needed state matching funds so that money should come sooner than later....right now Texas State has $10 million in "unfunded" which is the third highest behind Tech and UH at about $20 million each which is not great news, but it means when the money comes (hopefully next legislative session) Texas State will be in line for a major bump

also Texas has some other new research "matching" programs out there and one of them is very good news as well....Texas has a program that gives $500,000 for every $10 million in research if you have under $50 million in total research and it gives $1 million for every $10 million in total research if you are at $50 million+ in total research......Texas State in 2015 was at $47.7 million so there is another state funding boost for hitting the $50 million in TOTAL research mark which could happen in 2016

so there is some money out there "in the pipeline" for Texas State to keep moving up in research because dollars usually bring in more dollars and competitively awarded dollars (what restricted research usually is) usually are easier to get with other funding to help match the requested grant dollars

that is really it for "good news" the other universities are what I would call "news" because I am all for "The State of Texas" so them not doing things is not "good news" even if it works for Texas State

lets start with UTD

so they did not meet the endowment number needed and they met barely the first needed criteria of $45 million in restricted research

what this means is they are at least 2 years away from getting NRUF funding provided they keep the restricted research above $45 million in 2016 AND 2017 and of course if they can bump that endowment up a few million this year and hold it into 2017 so they would qualify for funding in 2018

I will not call that "good news" but I will say that every school fewer getting NRUF money just means more time for that WAT TOO SMALL of an endowment to grow a bit faster with fewer mouths to feed.....it really will only mean a few dollars here and there for later qualifying schools but still more is more

hell at this point them might get number of PhDs as well, but you get no bonus bucks for meeting 5 of the 6 criteria so it is what it is really it just shows how fast UTD is moving up

UTA

they are clearly positioning to be the next to qualify after UTD and that is evident with the 3 national academy member hires and it is also evident on a very new "plan" they have laid out on their website where they expect to have an endowment of $500 million by 2020

I am looking at that and thinking that is pretty damn ambitious (hell it is pretty crazy really) because they are at $122.4 according to UTIMCO (stock market down slightly from the NRUF report) and we are in the year 2016, but this plan posted is pretty much brand new and it has a lot of other listed metrics that actually seem realistic and doable so if they think they can raise $375+ million in 4 years after decades of getting to the $122.4 they have now......I hope they do it, but damn they better have someone about to drop $50 million on them X about 4 someones and it ain't me! (wish I could though) plus a lot of other donors lined up and again that statement from them is "endowment" not "pledges for the future" or "when wealthy guy does and we get his life insurance and some of the estate"

the bad news for UTA is for some reason they can't bump up that restricted research number past $30 million or so, but they have a "hiring" listing on the same strategic plan and they are hiring a lot of engineering and natural sciences faculty and they did complete a new research building recently and some of those new Texas research matching programs should help them as well

UTSA.....they are doing well with their freshman class, they have moved up their graduation rate some as well so the entrance metrics are paying off and enrollment has stabilized

they do have 1 national academy member and that is good

the bad news is while they raised decent money for their first ever capital campaign UTA managed to keep pace with them on endowment (they have both been neck and neck for years) and UTA has not exactly been tearing it up fundraising and clearly as stated above UTA looks to be starting some kind of extremely extremely extremely aggressive campaign while as of now UTSA has pretty much fired all their bullets

the reality is UTSA was WAY behind UTD and even UTA in most of the needed areas and they have down well catching up, but the REALITY is Texas State was at even more of a disadvantage and Texas State has caught up and passed UTSA in most needed metrics and looks poised to continue to do so

and while this does not need to be a "competition" and I hope UTSA progresses as well as anyone the reality is that Texas State is doing pretty damn good in elevating the university and Texas State has a lot of momentum left to capitalize on IMO while UTSA needs something new for a push and I am not sure where it will come from or if it will

UTEP.....they have ALWAYS been highly productive as a research university and on a per faculty member basis and really they SHOULD be the UTD of western Texas (without the high admissions), but they are run by an idiot that views the NRUF as not compatible with the "goals" of UTEP to be a degree factory and thus UTEP is not in the running at this time or in the long term future IMO

they are not going to try and meet freshman class because they prefer "opportunity" over quality, they are not going to push graduate programs over undergrad enrollment (even though they do not always have to be "either or") and they seem to have given up on fund raising even though they used to be OK at it and I doubt they push to hire national academy members anytime soon even though they could probably attract some

they have just given up on NRUF and really from the start they said they were not going to push to qualify

north Texas state.....sigh.....mean green gonna mean green...

major budget scandals they get to skate on by the stare for the most part (though still a serious on going issue even if GMGers do not think so because they will and are missing that funding they are no longer getting)

new president and their research profile is DROPPING as the report shows and has been for some time as far as restricted research goes

they are over a year behind on submitting a MANDATED update to the HORRIBLE JOKE OF a strategic plan they have on file with Texas

and their president was just called out by their BOR for possibly needing to cut back on the research focus and instead concentrate more on "enrollment"

I am pretty sure that did not sit well with him and while I will make VERY CLEAR I have ZERO insider info and that is all 100% personal opinion I am pretty sure he did not take the north Texas state job to be a guy running a large catch all university while UTA where he was a faculty member and UTD that he should be very familiar with as well from his UTA days are very clearly moving towards NRUF funding and a larger research and national profile

he was pushing UNLV where he left as president to be a larger research profile and now he gets to north Texas state and the BOR is wanting to question him if he is pushing research too much instead of enrollment

and this when they have the same (not good) 1 to 29 faculty to student ratio that Texas State currently has and the north Texas stare ratio has climbed while the Texas State one is holding steady (which is still not good it needs to go DOWN)

they also lost their faculty member that was a member of two national academies and thus the drop from 4 to 2 in the report A&M stole him away, but he is twice retired anyway and I do not think he taught more than a class or two at north Texas state ans was on loan to A&M the entire time before he jumped ship so he was never going to be there when north Texas state needed him to count he was a product of a terrible administration that stupidly believe they would be close to NRUF qualifications right now as based on their horrid strategic plan (the one that needs to be updated and with tons of missed goals)

more bad news for them they just completed a "major fund raiser" last year and of course it was really just smoke and mirrors, but that means they are a while away from another

they also have been losing a ton of full time faculty and replacing them with adjuncts and part time in spite of a report they were going to do the exact opposite

and in spite of advertising as being "low cost" their average tuition is now higher than all the emerging research universities besides UTD and UH and it is only a couple of hundred less than UH.....and their system bonding capacity is pretty much getting maxed out and they are jacking up dorm and meal plan cost as well

the GREAT news (possible but who knows) is the moron that has been the system chancellor for most of the worst disaster years is going to retire in about 18 months, but who knows what he can screw up between now and then or who he can run off and who knows what dunderhead they will replace him with and what he will screw up

so at the end of the day I still see it like this

UTD gets NRUF funding this time in 2018, UTA this time in 2022 and Texas State is EASILY in line to get it after that and before UTSA, UTEP and north Texas state provided they can raise private dollars and qualification that will probably happen in 8 years from now

well they released the report finally a couple ofl months later than normal

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/pd ... N=56496212

no surprises at all here it is pretty straight forward

the good news is Texas State is making amazing gains on the restricted research dollars and closing in on the amount UTA is doing

UTD has appeared to qualify for funds if they do as well or better on their metrics in 2017 as they did in 2016 and will get funded in 2018

UTEP has surpassed the research dollar qualifier, but of course they have placed ZERO effort into other metrics and appear to be continuing on that lack of progress (and lack of desire to have progress)

UTA looks to clearly be the next in line after UTD

they are the highest besides UTD and UTEP in restricted research and have new engineering facilities to help continue the gains

they have also met 3 of the 4 out of 6 needed criteria and they appear to be making a concerted effort to attract more "high quality faculty" and it should not be difficult for them to hire 2 more in the near future which would give them the needed 4 of 6 other criteria

other good news for Texas State is that freshman class in the top25% of HS class is back to 49% and so as I thought Texas State will look to keep that % as close to 50% as possible and will be in the position to bump it over 50% when needed

the number of "faculty awards" (the alternate qualifier in the "high quality faculty" metric is a nice gain for Texas State (four up from zero), but the issue with those is they are pretty much yearly awards where as hiring faculty in the National Academics is a long term way to meet that "faculty quality" metric

but still the fact that Texas State can hire faculty that pull the types of awards that count in the alternate metric shows there is promise both in terms of continuing to grow research and to possibly attract National Academy Members in the future

there is really no "bad news" for Texas State in this report

as far as who will qualify after UTD (pretty much a given at this point) and (most likely UTA) after that, well Texas State is in the position to be the one after UTA

but it will take effort and it will take recognition that Texas State is moving into position to qualify faster than planned

a new CS PhD and new Civil and Environmental Engineering undergrad degrees will help with freshman metrics and with research dollars.....and there is a potential to add Mechanical Engineering as well and that would be another boost.....combine that with finally getting the new engineering building and Texas State is in the position to continue to move the restricted research numbers forward at a rate perhaps faster than others

UTSA has one "high quality" faculty member and I would imagine they will add more over the next couple of years especially as UTA gets to 5 or more

north Texas state is back at two members under that qualification after the one member they had that counted twice (was a member of two national academics) was stolen away for good by A&M......and their restricted research dollars continue their multi-year downward trend with no sign that will abate as their system bleeds Denton dry, goes through leadership issues, Denton hires part time and non-tenure track professors and as they spend more and more on athletics

so really after the most likely situation where UTA qualifies for funding after UTD well it looks like UTEP is going to stay in "not interested" mode for the long term, north Texas state is on the side of the road with a faulty parking break and slipping clutch and rolling downhill at a slow pace and UTSA is slowly progressing at a pace perhaps just behind or equal to Texas State......but they have a new president now and that probably means new plans and reevaluation of goals and new goals

so Texas State needs to maintain their goals and probably take the view that if qualifying for this funding is important to them as soon as it is reasonably possible (even if at the same time or just after UTSA) they need to take some steps to meet two additional criteria out of the 6 available to meet

and as stated before it appears the criteria that Texas State has the best chance to meet are "endowment" and "high quality faculty"

Texas state will continue to be a member of Phi Kappa Phi I am sure, there is actually a plan to try and be a member of the ARL (Association of Research Libraries), but of course membership in PKP meets the criteria already in that category

the "good news" is that a increase in endowment and more engineering programs makes it likely that Texas State could attract national academy members and or Texas State could meet the "faculty awards" two years in a row

the bad news is $235 million is not chump change even if a number of other public Texas universities have set goals as high or higher than that recently

this is especially so when one considers that endowment campaigns often take in things like software, equipment, life trust and annuities ect that are not really "dollars" that immediately count towards a total endowment (the life trust and annuities often only coming to the school upon the death of the benefactor) and sometimes there are annual pledges that go out beyond the campaign that are counted as a part of the campaign if the benefactor is thought to have the sure ability to meet their pledge....but again the dollars are not a part of the endowment until they show up in the account

so raising a real, firm, right now $235 million would take some effort and to would take a campaign that spells out "the goal is to get dollars NOW" and build the endowment....works of art, future trust, software and equipment, (concrete very generous donation) and everything else is always welcome and appreciated, but it will be DOLLARS IN THE ACCOUNT that matter

while I am not sure the administrations of these various universities see qualifying for the additional funding as a real competition between each other I know that some have started to be more aggressive about meeting the goals

from the start Texas Tech and UH had a goal of qualifying as soon as possible and both did.....I believe the UT System had a goal to qualify their institutions in a pecking order that was not "fixed", but that was understood or looked at as "the plan".....and I think that was UTD is almost there, UTA needs to step it up (and they have somewhat) and then UTSA can try and be there with UTA of they can do it and if not well they will get "attention" after UTA does it.....and UTEP is allowed to be in give up mode

I know for a fact that north Texas state thought they were going to slip in there and basically build an unstable foundation of short term "do what we can damn the long term consequences and qualify" and they basically failed totally at that and now they are paying the price for that and appear to not be in a position to turn it around anytime soon

so Texas State and UTSA are both in pretty good places and both need to really address the same issues faculty and endowment.....UTSA ended their capital campaign a couple of years after Texas State ended their last one and Texas State still has the larger endowment as of now and Texas State is doing more restricted research and building the infrastructure to continue that.....but UTSA is doing things as well and had new fresh leadership

the one bit of "bad news" I would say is I am not sure Texas State is viewing their ability to qualify as soon as I think they might be able to

it is probably a given that "200 PhDs awarded" will be difficult to meet anytime soon and I am not sure that having several graduate programs that are funded and supported similar to AAU universities is a metric Texas State should shoot for (even if they are funding the new programs well and definitely not starting them on the cheap)

so again that leaves hiring national academy members and getting the endowment to $400 million and both go together.....because PKP membership is set or should be, Freshman class is attainable in short order of needed (and endowment dollars towards scholarships can help that as well) and so in my opinion it is getting down to nut cutting time

if Texas State continues to grow restricted research at a similar pace as they are now (or even at a more reasonable pace) it could be ass soon as 6 years or so that Texas State is looking to meet all the needed metrics because of meeting the primary restricted research metric

if things go better it could be as soon as five years......I think 7 years is probably a "passive" goal and Texas state can do better

five to six years is not a great deal of time considering that the restricted research numbers are from 2016 and 2017 is now ending at the end of August so really "one year" of 6 is now completed

so looking at "six years" from the time of "data" of this report that means five years are left starting in Sept 2017

so that means to raise $235 million in hard cash that would be $47 million per year....in HARD CASH

and to meet the faculty metric that would be one new National Academy Member hired per year for the next 5 years which IS doable, but it is only doable with CASH and endowment.....and starting new PhD programs and new engineering programs can help that....but the time to ACT is NOW unless Texas State is going to accept qualifying in 7 or 8 years from now which would probably only be ahead of north Texas state and UTEP

I think at the least Texas State should have a goal of qualifying at the same time as UTSA if not a year or so before

Thank you for the continual, and comprehensive, updates on this topic.

agreed. always like to read the updates on the big money/picture perspective. thanks!

I agree. I love when I see an update from Someone, one of the main reasons I come to this forum.

report came out early this year

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/pd ... N=38368895

link to restricted research numbers (pop up in excel)

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/Do ... Format=XLS

there is little change to report, but lets go over the basics

1. UTD is going to qualify (they have at this point and will get the funding I believe starting next year)

2. UTA still looks to be the next in line

but that could be a few years away they are doing $36 million and change in restricted research the first needed criteria before all the others matter

they meet 3 of the 4 needed other criteria and they have 3 faculty members that are National Academy Members and I believe they added all 3 in the last 3 or 4 years and it would not take a great deal more effort to add two more if that is what is needed

adding 2 more would give them the needed 4 of 6 other criteria and I do not think they will fail to meet ant of the others now that they are currently meeting those 3....IE I do not thing think that PhD production, Freshman Class or PKP membership will go away

3. UTEP meets the $45 million in restricted research, but they only meet one of the other 4 criteria

they will most likely not eve consider meeting freshman class because that goes against the "ideals" of their idiot president (low standards and low expectations), they are a LONG ways away for PhDs graduated, and they are a ways away for endowment and seem to have no plans (or desire) to have a capital campaign and they have ZERO faculty members in the National Academics and are probably not looking to add any

laughably they also do not meet the "Demonstrated Progress to Improve Performance of Underrepresented Students" which I believe is an issue and can hinder qualification

north Texas state also does not meet that and that is the second time in 3 years that north Texas state has failed to meet that.....but that changes from year to year, but I believe it matters

4. UTSA had a nice jump in restricted research as in the past it looks like Texas State and UTSA are on a path to qualify at a similar point in the future barring one or the other putting on a big push

5. north Texas state is still doing pathetic and moved below the 200 PhDs graduated metric and again the second time in three years to not meet the "Demonstrated Progress to Improve Performance of Underrepresented Students"

they managed to slightly reverse a multi-year decline in restricted research, but they are still WAY back and they are about to be passed in endowment by UTSA and UTA and Texas State is keeping distance on them

UTA should at some point have a fund raiser they have a goal of an $500 million dollar endowment by 2020 on their website, but I see no way that is possible at this point barring something dramatic

north Texas state is still at 2 members of the National Academies....they were at 4 in the past, but one faculty member that was in two of The Academies (so counted as two) and that really barely spent time on campus and taught few classes (and might not have actually counted in an "audit" of the criteria because of that) was poached by A&M

he had been "on leave" to A&M since the time he was hired by north Texas state and the research institute that A&M had finally just hired him away.....he was an example of what I have mentioned in the past where north Texas state thought they were going to basically cheat a bunch of the criteria in a two year free for all and when it became clear that was not going to happen it all fell apart for them and here they are

6.

some might have concerns that Texas State only meets 1 of the 4 criteria needed out of 6

BUT looking at the numbers and considering the starting point things are still good

the restricted research will always be the hardest to meet and Texas State is crushing that year in and year out

as shown Texas State actually met the "freshman class" metric, but only in 2017 not 2016 so again as mentioned before Texas State is not going to let that slip away they are going to hold that

with a new engineering building on the way and new engineering programs on the way the time is NOW to start hiring National Academy members, but who knows maybe ebonics math professors are more important

the endowment is moving up and with the $2 million from the McCoys talked about in another thread (that is most likely not a part of the $187 million listed) and if it is straight cash well that gets it probably close to $190 million

and here is some good news on that front

http://www.ua.txstate.edu/about/2017End ... nualReport

Texas state has set a goal of getting the endowment to $400 million by 2026 and $200 million by 2020

so there is finally recognition by the university of the needed goal of $400 million (I think they always knew about it clearly), but more importantly there is a SET DATE AND GOAL to get there

the bad news is I think that is simply not aggressive enough I stated right in the first post of 2013 in this threat Texas state should shoot for 8 years to be AGGRESSIVE that would be 2021 or 2022

8 years is a long time away and at the rate Texas State is moving their restricted research and with a couple of new PhD programs and a new engineering facility and new engineering programs there is no reason that Texas State can't meet the restricted research numbers before 2026, but it will take private dollars to do so and shooting to get those dollars in 2026 is not regressive enough

but the reality is there is nothing wrong with being conservative and meeting your goals ahead of time, but you also do not want to set the bar to low from the start

so overall things are looking good, there is a plan in place, Texas State is still about even with UTSA in metrics, getting freshman class in line, has new important programs and facilities coming, and still well ahead of north Texas state and UTEP in important criteria and planning/goals IMO

again this is not a real "competition" because all are able to qualify at some point, but IMO it is a nice thing for Texas State to be able to say that they went from a university that was not even in the "emerging research" category when the NRUF program started to becoming an emerging research university AND qualifying for funding ahead of at least 2 of not 3 of the universities that were in that category when the NRUF started

it pretty much punches the naysayers from those other schools right in the face and balls

thanks for the breakdown - appreciate the common-man's translation!

just a small addition to this

http://tpr.org/post/utsa-president-tayl ... ion-future

listening to the new UTSA president at the above link he mentioned later in the interview that in 2019 UTSA will be looking to start a capital campaign for athletics and for the entire university as well

he specifically mentioned a basketball arena was a major need and an athletics/football facility (not a stajium but training ect)

so it looks like UTSA will be starting their next overall university capital campaign in 2019 and they are in the process of getting together a "needs" dollar amount for athletics to shoot for in that overall campaign

it has been my opinion that Texas State should be in the process of forming another capital campaign much sooner than later and the link that I shared a couple of post above where Texas State has a goal for $200 million by 2020 and $400 by 2026 for the endowment just might not be aggressive enough in terms of dollars and time frame....that is just my opinion though and at least Texas State has made a move to recognize the need to boost the endowment

Do you think TXST is waiting on Truath to retire before announcing/starting a fundraising campaign? I could be very wrong on this, but it seems easier to fund-raise with a fresh face leading the way.